Norway: Muslima Repatriated From Syrian Refugee Camp for Humanitarian Reasons Charged With Involvement in Terror Org Anyone who might have objected to her repatriation on national security grounds would have been derided as a “racist, bigoted, Islamophobe.” Maybe now such people will begin to be watched by authorities for signs of “far-right extremism.” Meanwhile, as this article shows, the real terrorists don’t feel any sense of gratitude to the Infidels who aid them. Such kindness is seen only as weakness. “Syrian teen arrested in Norway for plotting attack,” AFP, February 5, 2021 (thanks to Fjordman): …Also on Friday, Norwegian police charged a 30-year-old Norwegian woman of Pakistani origin, repatriated last year from Syria’s Al-Hol camp for humanitarian reasons, with participating in a terrorist organisation. --Norway: Muslima repatriated from Syrian refugee camp for humanitarian reasons charged with involvement in terror org --https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/norway-muslima-repatriated-from-syrian-refugee-camp-for-humanitarian-reasons-charged-with-involvement-in-terror-org -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:55:49 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
thumb_up6thumb_downchat_bubble

More from entryreqrd

Biden Justice Department Pick Opposed Enforcing Civil Rights Laws Against Blacks The incoming Justice Department civil rights chief has a history of opposing civil rights prosecutions of black defendants, arguing against bringing a complaint against an African-American Democratic leader who discriminated against white voters. As an NAACP lawyer, Kristen Clarke lambasted the Justice Department for bringing a complaint against an African-American party boss in Mississippi who worked to suppress white votes, according to a federal probe. On a separate occasion, a federal oversight commission investigated claims that Clarke worked with allies at the Justice Department to quash the prosecution of the Black Panthers who menaced voters outside a Philadelphia precinct in 2008. Clarke's nomination to an influential Justice Department post will test the Biden administration's commitment to "equity-based" policy making, which purportedly promotes racial justice by giving special attention to marginalized groups. Clarke's professional history suggests a staunchly ideological approach to civil rights enforcement where touchstone civil rights laws are applied to advantage some demographic groups but not others. Clarke made waves in 2007 as an outside critic of the Justice Department's civil prosecution of a corrupt party leader in Mississippi. A federal judge found that the leader, Ike Brown, violated the Voting Rights Act by suppressing white votes in a rural Mississippi county where whites are the minority. He was found to have pushed election workers to count deficient absentee ballots from blacks but disqualify ballots from whites with the same problems and held rigged caucuses in the homes of friends and supporters. Then legal director of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, Clarke opposed the Justice Department's decision to prosecute him, according to 2010 testimony from Justice Department official Christopher Coates before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Coates described a 2008 meeting with Clarke in which she "spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the division and the voting section for bringing the Brown case," and identified Clarke as part of a coterie of civil rights litigators who "believe incorrectly but vehemently that enforcement of the protections of the Voting Rights Act should not be extended to white voters but should be extended only to protecting racial, ethnic, and language minorities." Unanswered questions also linger over Clarke's role in the Justice Department's abrupt retreat from the 2009 prosecution of two uniform-clad Black Panthers intimidated voters and poll workers outside a Philadelphia voting precinct. An internal Justice Department report said that the pair intimated voters, shouted racial epithets, and castigated a black couple serving as poll watchers for the Republican party. One of them carried a billy club. Federal prosecutors brought a civil complaint against the two Black Panthers in 2009, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The defendants never responded to the complaint—effectively a forfeit—so the government was poised to win its case by default. But on the cusp of victory, in May 2009 the Justice Department dismissed its case against one of the panthers and recommended reduced sentencing for the other. USCCR began investigating her involvement following a press report that she was in touch with DOJ lawyers about the case. In a deposition before the Civil Rights Commission the following year, Clarke acknowledged contact with two Justice Department lawyers about the case but denied those contacts were substantive. Coates, the Justice Department official, revealed a third alleged contact, testifying in September 2010 that Clarke approached one of his subordinates about the case in 2009. That approach, Coates said, "led me to believe in 2009 that the Legal Defense Fund political participation director, Ms. Clarke, was lobbying for the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case before it was dismissed." At the time, Clarke was director of political participation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which denied any role in back-channel communications that led to the case's dismissal. "LDF played no role in, and conducted no advocacy around, DOJ's New Black Panther Party litigation," the group said in a letter to the Civil Rights Commission. "Statements that LDF, or any of its staff, sought to influence the manner or to limit the scope of the litigation in any respect are false. Clarke, whose post requires Senate approval, has also faced criticism for promoting pseudoscientific theories of black racial superiority as a student at Harvard, and hosting an avowed anti-Semite on campus. A hearing on Clarke's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet been scheduled. A White House spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. --Biden Justice Department Pick Opposed Enforcing Civil Rights Laws Against Blacks --https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-justice-department-pick-opposed-enforcing-civil-rights-laws-against-blacks/ -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:44:23 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
63 views · Feb 8th
Growing evidence Capitol attack was pre-planned undercuts Trump impeachment premise Emerging evidence also raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. Days before former President Trump's impeachment trial begins, newly filed federal charges against anti-government activists offer fresh, compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the Capitol riots pre-planned their attack days and weeks in advance and in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats. A dozen FBI affidavits supporting charges against the more than 200 defendants show rioters engaged in advance planning on social media sites. The planning included training, casing sites, identifying commanders on scene, and requests for donations of cash, as well as combat and communication gear. More than a half dozen of the suspects are now charged with conspiracy to commit violence for actions predating the Jan. 6 riots. The early actions identified in court documents date back to November, with planning and rhetoric accelerating after Christmas, court records show. That growing body of evidence raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. It also undercuts the House Democrats' impeachment claim — supported by 10 Republicans — that Trump's speech spontaneously incited the riots, legal experts told Just the News. "I would hope that those 10 Republicans and hopefully even some Democrats would say as we now look at the timelines that the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all are reporting on, here's exactly it, the facts," said Kenneth Starr, the former federal appeals judge, solicitor general and Whitewater independent counsel. "[House lawmakers] made a huge, colossal blunder," said Starr, who was a member of the defense team for Trump's first Senate impeachment trial. "So walk back, and apologize to the former president, apologize to the American people that I never should have voted in favor of this without the benefit of all the facts. I rushed to judgment." Trump's lawyers are planning to argue the president's speech did not in fact incite violence but rather called for peaceful protest and was protected by the First Amendment. They also are preparing a video montage showing Democrats making comments encouraging violence dating to last summer's BLM protests. George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat who has defended Trump on impeachment issues, argued in a column published Sunday in The Hill newspaper that the impeachment claims do not meet the legal standard of incitement. "It is so much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-television charges," Turley wrote. "I do not fault these experts for speculating about such a case, but many claim that prosecution would be relatively simple. That is just not true. "The problem is free speech. The remarks of Trump last month would not satisfy the test in [landmark free speech case Brandenburg v. Ohio] when the Supreme Court said 'advocacy of the use of force or of law violation' is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for use of force. He told supporters to go 'peacefully' and to 'cheer on' his allies in Congress." Beyond the First Amendment, the FBI's investigation provides growing evidence that the riot was not spontaneous but planned. For instance, last week federal prosecutors filed an FBI affidavit showing that two days after Christmas, an anti-government activist named Ethan Nordean in the state of Washington posted a message on his Parler account as he planned to come to Washington for the Jan. 6 Capitol protest. It made a fund-raising appeal to "help us with safety/protective gear and communications equipment," according to FBI documents, By Jan. 4, Nordean, a Proud Boys member who also went by the fictional name Rufio Panman, escalated the rhetoric as he prepared to come to the capital, suggesting violence was imminent. "Let them remember the day they decided to make war with us," Nordean allegedly wrote on his Parler account. Screenshots taken from a video "show NORDEAN and other Proud Boys dressed in tactical gear along with the phrase 'Back the YELLOW,' which is a phrase commonly used to show support for the Proud Boys," the FBI affidavit said. File Nordean.pdf FBI affidavits filed against other defendants in the attack detail extensive fundraising efforts on popular and public websites like Go Fund Me and the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, prompting a crackdown on such sites. One of the cases in which the FBI has detailed the most extensive pre-planning involves the conspiracy charges against Thomas Edward Caldwell, Donovan Ray Crowl, and Jessica Marie Watkins. "Evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did CALDWELL, CROWL, WATKINS, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned their attack," an FBI affidavit states. File CaldwellAffidavit.pdf The FBI alleges intercepted audio from the Jan. 6 attacks shows the three discussing sticking to a plan. "We have a good group," Watkins is quoted saying in one of the transmissions. "We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan." The affidavit also cites a pre-riot meeting at a northern Virginia hotel In one Facebook message, Crowl tells Caldwell: "Will probably call you tomorrow ... mainly because ... I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man COMMANDER." The FBI also states that days before the riot Caldwell appeared to refer to Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes in a Facebook message to group members in which he talked about coordinating with activists from other states. "I don't know if Stewie has even gotten out his call to arms but it's a little friggin late," Caldwell wrote, according to the FBI. "This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew." As the FBI uses open-source social media to make its case against many of the accused perpetrators, questions are also arising about why the FBi didn't do more beforehand to thwart actors who were talking about war, violence and combat when they got to Washington. FBI officials, when pressed about whether agents were too complacent before the attacks, noted that an alert was sent Jan. 4 to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington, D.C. warning of possible violence. They also cited Director Chris Wray's testimony in September to the House Judiciary Committee in which he vowed vigilance against anti-government and white supremacist activists but warned that the bureau often feels constrained by the line between the First Amendment and imminent threats of violence. "We recognize that the FBI must be aware not just of the domestic violent extremism threat, but also of threats emanating from those responding violently to First Amendment-protected activities," Wray testified. "In the past, we have seen some violent extremists respond to peaceful movements through violence rather than non-violent actions and ideas, he said. "The FBI is involved only when responses cross from ideas and constitutionally protected protests to violence. Regardless of the specific ideology involved, the FBI requires that all domestic terrorism investigations be predicated based on activity intended to further a political or social goal, wholly or in part involving force, coercion, or violence, in violation of federal law." --Growing evidence Capitol attack was pre-planned undercuts Trump impeachment premise | Just The News --https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mon-growing-evidence-capitol-attack-pre-planned-undercuts-trump-impeachment -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:42:57 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
90 views · Feb 8th
Marjorie Taylor Greene liked one Super Bowl commercial and the reason is infuriating leftists If you're trying to guess which one she liked, here's a hint: It was NOT the Bruce Springsteen call for unity. When politicians are cast into a negative spotlight, they usually recoil to their respective corners and wait out the storm. The last thing they’ll do is chime in on a popular event because doing so will only draw more attacks. But Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a regular politician. During last night’s Super Bowl, she didn’t just chime in. She did so with a Tweet that is already sending progressives into the unhinged depths of insanity. An ad by Toyota and Team USA Olympics highlighted the miraculous path by which world-record paralympic swimmer Jessica Long came to become a champion. The tear-jerking story told of her adoptive parents learning a baby girl from Russia was up for adoption, but she had a condition that would require both of her legs to be amputated. Despite knowing these challenges would make raising the baby girl very difficult, they were overcome with joy at the prospects. They were going to raise a daughter. Greene, a staunch conservative and mother, latched onto the sentiment that was apparent in the subtext. Adoption is an option that allows those with challenges to live their lives. It can be very difficult for the birth parents, the adoptive parents, and the child, but if it can prevent a pre-born baby from being aborted, the sacrifices are necessary. While Tom Brady and his Tampa Bay Buccaneers made history with their Super Bowl win, his seventh, the Republican Congresswoman from Georgia thought this commercial was the only thing worth watching all night. --Marjorie Taylor Greene liked one Super Bowl commercial and the reason is infuriating leftists --https://noqreport.com/2021/02/08/marjorie-taylor-greene-liked-one-super-bowl-commercial-and-the-reason-is-infuriating-leftists/ -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:39:44 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
66 views · Feb 8th

More from entryreqrd

Biden Justice Department Pick Opposed Enforcing Civil Rights Laws Against Blacks The incoming Justice Department civil rights chief has a history of opposing civil rights prosecutions of black defendants, arguing against bringing a complaint against an African-American Democratic leader who discriminated against white voters. As an NAACP lawyer, Kristen Clarke lambasted the Justice Department for bringing a complaint against an African-American party boss in Mississippi who worked to suppress white votes, according to a federal probe. On a separate occasion, a federal oversight commission investigated claims that Clarke worked with allies at the Justice Department to quash the prosecution of the Black Panthers who menaced voters outside a Philadelphia precinct in 2008. Clarke's nomination to an influential Justice Department post will test the Biden administration's commitment to "equity-based" policy making, which purportedly promotes racial justice by giving special attention to marginalized groups. Clarke's professional history suggests a staunchly ideological approach to civil rights enforcement where touchstone civil rights laws are applied to advantage some demographic groups but not others. Clarke made waves in 2007 as an outside critic of the Justice Department's civil prosecution of a corrupt party leader in Mississippi. A federal judge found that the leader, Ike Brown, violated the Voting Rights Act by suppressing white votes in a rural Mississippi county where whites are the minority. He was found to have pushed election workers to count deficient absentee ballots from blacks but disqualify ballots from whites with the same problems and held rigged caucuses in the homes of friends and supporters. Then legal director of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, Clarke opposed the Justice Department's decision to prosecute him, according to 2010 testimony from Justice Department official Christopher Coates before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Coates described a 2008 meeting with Clarke in which she "spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the division and the voting section for bringing the Brown case," and identified Clarke as part of a coterie of civil rights litigators who "believe incorrectly but vehemently that enforcement of the protections of the Voting Rights Act should not be extended to white voters but should be extended only to protecting racial, ethnic, and language minorities." Unanswered questions also linger over Clarke's role in the Justice Department's abrupt retreat from the 2009 prosecution of two uniform-clad Black Panthers intimidated voters and poll workers outside a Philadelphia voting precinct. An internal Justice Department report said that the pair intimated voters, shouted racial epithets, and castigated a black couple serving as poll watchers for the Republican party. One of them carried a billy club. Federal prosecutors brought a civil complaint against the two Black Panthers in 2009, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The defendants never responded to the complaint—effectively a forfeit—so the government was poised to win its case by default. But on the cusp of victory, in May 2009 the Justice Department dismissed its case against one of the panthers and recommended reduced sentencing for the other. USCCR began investigating her involvement following a press report that she was in touch with DOJ lawyers about the case. In a deposition before the Civil Rights Commission the following year, Clarke acknowledged contact with two Justice Department lawyers about the case but denied those contacts were substantive. Coates, the Justice Department official, revealed a third alleged contact, testifying in September 2010 that Clarke approached one of his subordinates about the case in 2009. That approach, Coates said, "led me to believe in 2009 that the Legal Defense Fund political participation director, Ms. Clarke, was lobbying for the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case before it was dismissed." At the time, Clarke was director of political participation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which denied any role in back-channel communications that led to the case's dismissal. "LDF played no role in, and conducted no advocacy around, DOJ's New Black Panther Party litigation," the group said in a letter to the Civil Rights Commission. "Statements that LDF, or any of its staff, sought to influence the manner or to limit the scope of the litigation in any respect are false. Clarke, whose post requires Senate approval, has also faced criticism for promoting pseudoscientific theories of black racial superiority as a student at Harvard, and hosting an avowed anti-Semite on campus. A hearing on Clarke's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet been scheduled. A White House spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. --Biden Justice Department Pick Opposed Enforcing Civil Rights Laws Against Blacks --https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-justice-department-pick-opposed-enforcing-civil-rights-laws-against-blacks/ -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:44:23 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
63 views · Feb 8th
Growing evidence Capitol attack was pre-planned undercuts Trump impeachment premise Emerging evidence also raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. Days before former President Trump's impeachment trial begins, newly filed federal charges against anti-government activists offer fresh, compelling evidence that the accused perpetrators of the Capitol riots pre-planned their attack days and weeks in advance and in plain sight of an FBI that vowed to be vigilant to extremist threats. A dozen FBI affidavits supporting charges against the more than 200 defendants show rioters engaged in advance planning on social media sites. The planning included training, casing sites, identifying commanders on scene, and requests for donations of cash, as well as combat and communication gear. More than a half dozen of the suspects are now charged with conspiracy to commit violence for actions predating the Jan. 6 riots. The early actions identified in court documents date back to November, with planning and rhetoric accelerating after Christmas, court records show. That growing body of evidence raises questions about whether the FBI and other security agencies acted proactively enough to thwart the violence. It also undercuts the House Democrats' impeachment claim — supported by 10 Republicans — that Trump's speech spontaneously incited the riots, legal experts told Just the News. "I would hope that those 10 Republicans and hopefully even some Democrats would say as we now look at the timelines that the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and all are reporting on, here's exactly it, the facts," said Kenneth Starr, the former federal appeals judge, solicitor general and Whitewater independent counsel. "[House lawmakers] made a huge, colossal blunder," said Starr, who was a member of the defense team for Trump's first Senate impeachment trial. "So walk back, and apologize to the former president, apologize to the American people that I never should have voted in favor of this without the benefit of all the facts. I rushed to judgment." Trump's lawyers are planning to argue the president's speech did not in fact incite violence but rather called for peaceful protest and was protected by the First Amendment. They also are preparing a video montage showing Democrats making comments encouraging violence dating to last summer's BLM protests. George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat who has defended Trump on impeachment issues, argued in a column published Sunday in The Hill newspaper that the impeachment claims do not meet the legal standard of incitement. "It is so much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-television charges," Turley wrote. "I do not fault these experts for speculating about such a case, but many claim that prosecution would be relatively simple. That is just not true. "The problem is free speech. The remarks of Trump last month would not satisfy the test in [landmark free speech case Brandenburg v. Ohio] when the Supreme Court said 'advocacy of the use of force or of law violation' is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for use of force. He told supporters to go 'peacefully' and to 'cheer on' his allies in Congress." Beyond the First Amendment, the FBI's investigation provides growing evidence that the riot was not spontaneous but planned. For instance, last week federal prosecutors filed an FBI affidavit showing that two days after Christmas, an anti-government activist named Ethan Nordean in the state of Washington posted a message on his Parler account as he planned to come to Washington for the Jan. 6 Capitol protest. It made a fund-raising appeal to "help us with safety/protective gear and communications equipment," according to FBI documents, By Jan. 4, Nordean, a Proud Boys member who also went by the fictional name Rufio Panman, escalated the rhetoric as he prepared to come to the capital, suggesting violence was imminent. "Let them remember the day they decided to make war with us," Nordean allegedly wrote on his Parler account. Screenshots taken from a video "show NORDEAN and other Proud Boys dressed in tactical gear along with the phrase 'Back the YELLOW,' which is a phrase commonly used to show support for the Proud Boys," the FBI affidavit said. File Nordean.pdf FBI affidavits filed against other defendants in the attack detail extensive fundraising efforts on popular and public websites like Go Fund Me and the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, prompting a crackdown on such sites. One of the cases in which the FBI has detailed the most extensive pre-planning involves the conspiracy charges against Thomas Edward Caldwell, Donovan Ray Crowl, and Jessica Marie Watkins. "Evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did CALDWELL, CROWL, WATKINS, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned their attack," an FBI affidavit states. File CaldwellAffidavit.pdf The FBI alleges intercepted audio from the Jan. 6 attacks shows the three discussing sticking to a plan. "We have a good group," Watkins is quoted saying in one of the transmissions. "We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking together and sticking to the plan." The affidavit also cites a pre-riot meeting at a northern Virginia hotel In one Facebook message, Crowl tells Caldwell: "Will probably call you tomorrow ... mainly because ... I like to know wtf plan is. You are the man COMMANDER." The FBI also states that days before the riot Caldwell appeared to refer to Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes in a Facebook message to group members in which he talked about coordinating with activists from other states. "I don't know if Stewie has even gotten out his call to arms but it's a little friggin late," Caldwell wrote, according to the FBI. "This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina crew." As the FBI uses open-source social media to make its case against many of the accused perpetrators, questions are also arising about why the FBi didn't do more beforehand to thwart actors who were talking about war, violence and combat when they got to Washington. FBI officials, when pressed about whether agents were too complacent before the attacks, noted that an alert was sent Jan. 4 to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington, D.C. warning of possible violence. They also cited Director Chris Wray's testimony in September to the House Judiciary Committee in which he vowed vigilance against anti-government and white supremacist activists but warned that the bureau often feels constrained by the line between the First Amendment and imminent threats of violence. "We recognize that the FBI must be aware not just of the domestic violent extremism threat, but also of threats emanating from those responding violently to First Amendment-protected activities," Wray testified. "In the past, we have seen some violent extremists respond to peaceful movements through violence rather than non-violent actions and ideas, he said. "The FBI is involved only when responses cross from ideas and constitutionally protected protests to violence. Regardless of the specific ideology involved, the FBI requires that all domestic terrorism investigations be predicated based on activity intended to further a political or social goal, wholly or in part involving force, coercion, or violence, in violation of federal law." --Growing evidence Capitol attack was pre-planned undercuts Trump impeachment premise | Just The News --https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/mon-growing-evidence-capitol-attack-pre-planned-undercuts-trump-impeachment -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:42:57 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
90 views · Feb 8th
Marjorie Taylor Greene liked one Super Bowl commercial and the reason is infuriating leftists If you're trying to guess which one she liked, here's a hint: It was NOT the Bruce Springsteen call for unity. When politicians are cast into a negative spotlight, they usually recoil to their respective corners and wait out the storm. The last thing they’ll do is chime in on a popular event because doing so will only draw more attacks. But Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a regular politician. During last night’s Super Bowl, she didn’t just chime in. She did so with a Tweet that is already sending progressives into the unhinged depths of insanity. An ad by Toyota and Team USA Olympics highlighted the miraculous path by which world-record paralympic swimmer Jessica Long came to become a champion. The tear-jerking story told of her adoptive parents learning a baby girl from Russia was up for adoption, but she had a condition that would require both of her legs to be amputated. Despite knowing these challenges would make raising the baby girl very difficult, they were overcome with joy at the prospects. They were going to raise a daughter. Greene, a staunch conservative and mother, latched onto the sentiment that was apparent in the subtext. Adoption is an option that allows those with challenges to live their lives. It can be very difficult for the birth parents, the adoptive parents, and the child, but if it can prevent a pre-born baby from being aborted, the sacrifices are necessary. While Tom Brady and his Tampa Bay Buccaneers made history with their Super Bowl win, his seventh, the Republican Congresswoman from Georgia thought this commercial was the only thing worth watching all night. --Marjorie Taylor Greene liked one Super Bowl commercial and the reason is infuriating leftists --https://noqreport.com/2021/02/08/marjorie-taylor-greene-liked-one-super-bowl-commercial-and-the-reason-is-infuriating-leftists/ -RETRIEVED-Mon Feb 08 2021 13:39:44 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
66 views · Feb 8th